Chutes- which one and where to buy

[mike.smith]

Thanks Mike. I sold my National because 1) I wasn't using it and 2) because I needed the $ for a project and 3) I believed they had to be retired after 10 years. I sold it back in 2009.

The manufacturer could put a life limit on the gear, but I don't know if that is the case.

My current skydiving gear (yes, I still jump out of planes) is 20 years old and still in great shape.

[fastj22]

I did a dozen jumps back in 1981. Getting the itch to try it again. There's a drop zone nearby that does accelerated free fall training. How often do you have to jump to stay current?

[ViennaVA223]

I submitted a long reply to this thread this morning but haven't seen it posted. Did it fail to transmit? Did a site administrator reject it?

ViennaVA223

[ViennaVA223]

I will try again but will submit shorter chunks.

First, I'm very happy to see continued discussion on this subject. As I wrote before, SO MUCH can be said, and needs to be said, about the subject of emergency parachutes for sport pilots. I am going to--I hope you will pardon the pun--"jump around" from one aspect of the topic to another.

Bryan Cotton asked if buying a used bail-out rig is a viable option. He also asked if parachutes "time out" (i.e., have a life limit)l. He hasn't received an adequate and accurate response to those questions. My short answers: Yes, buying a used bail-out rig can be an intelligent decision. Whether parachutes "time out" depends on WHICH MANUFACTURER OR "EXPERT" YOU ASK. For example, Alan Silver, a long-time master rigger in California, has an extensive and informative website, on which he says he won't perform an I&R (inspection and repack) on a parachute more than 15 years old. Similarly, I believe the manufacturer sets a 15-year service life limit on the Softie line of bail-out rigs. But during Sun 'n' Fun last month, I raised this subject with Cody Kelso, sales manager for Strong Enterprises (Orlando, Fla.); he said Strong does NOT agree with Alan Silver and others on this mandatory service life. Strong takes the position that if the gear they've built passes inspection by an FAA-certified rigger, whatever its age, it's airworthy. Good news to me, because my primary bail-out rig is a Strong chair-style harness & container mated to a Strong 26-foot LoPo (low porosity) canopy that I bought in the 1970s as my reserve skydiving canopy (never deployed); it rode first in a Strong Stylemaster chest-mounted reserve and then later in a Strong Pop-Top chest-mounted reserve.

But I digress ...

I don't know when this mandatory service limit was imposed by some manufacturers and some riggers. I suspect that it has been driven by (1) attorneys seeking to reduce exposure to product liability, and (2) the sad fact that some people don't take proper care of their gear, including emergency parachutes. I'm NOT going to suggest that marketing has had anything to do with it.

Mike Smith says his skydiving gear is still in great shape after 20 years; I don't doubt it. Mine from the early '70s is still in great shape. I've also seen skydivers who would leave their gear in the blazing sun while they went off to lunch, walked on their own suspension lines in grit-encrusted soles, and dragged their harness and container through sand and mud. On the other hand, I bought a bail-out rig--a military surplus B-4 backpack-style harness/container with a 28-foot flat circular canopy--from a fellow glider pilot without reservation. The woman, a physician, took meticulous care of her airplane, glider, and parachutes; knowing that was a big factor in my decision to buy the rig.

Getting back to Bryan Cotton's question about buying a used emergency parachute, my personal recommendation would be (to echo statements already made by others), make the sale contingent upon inspection by an experienced rigger, and if the manufacturer has imposed a service life limit on the rig, pro-rate the value of the parachute based on the percentage of service life left on the rig.

Much better than a bail-out rig would be a whole-airplane parachute system, which will be the subject of my next installment. And, oh YES!!! I KNOW that Sonex does not endorse or provide means to do so on any of their models except the SubSonex, and YES!!! I understand WHY!!! However, it's a subject that needs to be discussed.

More later.

ViennaVA223

[Bryan Cotton]

Thanks everybody for the discussion! Jan, I have lost posts lately too. Not sure if it is my phone or the forum. I hit submit and lose my internet connection.

[ViennaVA223]

During the 1950s, I lived on a fahm (that's Downeast for "farm") in Maine. I attended Dedham Elementary School, a modest educational facility (I am being kind) that housed grades K-8 in three rooms. In Nellie Magoon's room (grades 3-5) reposed, on a shelf, the 1933 edition of Compton's Pictured Encyclopedia; it might be there still. In one volume of the encyclopedia was a lovely B&W photo, shot from below, of a pilot in an open-cockpit biplane descending under a huge, white (probably cotton twill) whole-airplane parachute canopy. I'd been airplane-crazy since I could walk, and I thought that photo was one of the coolest things I'd ever seen. I still do.

I don't recall any text that might have accompanied the photo, but today I suspect the photo was of Roscoe Turner, the famed air racer and showman, who flew test flights of a whole-airplane parachute system for the Russell Parachute Company in 1928. Today Roscoe reposes in Crown Hill Cemetery in Indianapolis, IN.

But I digress ...

As many know, decades went by with naught to show for these early, successful experiments. Flash forward to 1975, when Boris Popov survived a 400-foot descent after a structural failure in his hang glider, wishing he had a parachute to deploy. In 1980, Boris launched Ballistic Recovery Systems (BRS). Second Chantz and others entered the market later.

Today, BRS claims more than 30,000 units installed, and 350 lives saved. The BRS set-up is available today as an option on the SubSonex for $3,830, but is not available on any of the four Sonex piston models. Some people continue to ask if/when BRS will become available on the prop jobs. In fact, during the EAA webinar featuring John Monnett on the Sonex Model B and other things Sonex, just a few weeks ago, a webinar listener asked the question.

John reiterated that the design of the SubSonex, which has the jet engine aft of the cockpit and thus balances that weight with the pilot forward of the wing spars, can have the BRS harness well aft of the pilot and thus not risk decapitating the pilot as would happen with a BRS installed in one of the piston models.

Unfortunately, John also claimed that the Sonex "stalls at 35, and you come down at 30" under a BRS canopy, implying that a BRS on a Sonex wouldn't confer much survival advantage to a Sonex pilot and passenger. I have seen no effort to correct him on this misleading statement, so I'll do it: Because John said the Sonex "stalls at 35," that suggests he was thinking in knots. The 30 knots of vertical descent rate he assigned to an airplane under a BRS canopy translates to 34.5 mph, or about 52 feet per second (fps). That doesn't begin to square with the statement in the FAQ section of the BRS website that the descent rate will be 15-28 fps at 5,000 feet density altitude with the rated weight of the canopy. I believe the BRS folks have lots of FAA certification data to back up their numbers.

Then there's the other little nit: Yes, the Sonex will stall at 35 knots in a full-flap, 1g, level, unaccelerated stall with the airplane under control, and it should stall at a slightly lower speed under the same conditions at less than gross weight. All of which is excellent, but not the conditions guaranteed for your future inflight crisis.

Anyway, let's start with the BRS data for vertical descent rate and work backwards from there. I'm not an engineer, nor have I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express any time recently, but I can't believe that engineering some modifications to the Sonex, Waiex, Xenos, and Onex to permit safely installing and using a BRS system in those aircraft would be that huge a challenge. Sonex hired a young engineer/pilot/Sonex builder some months ago; she has eye-popping credentials. Perhaps she will find a solution. It would mean a WHOLE lot more to me than the extra five gallons of fuel the B model will carry. In fact, here's a tradeoff: if I were flying solo, I could gas up with a full 20 gallons; with a passenger, I could forego the extra 5 gallons (30 pounds) to "pay" for the BRS. Yes, it would add cost, complexity, weight, etc. It still would be the single most important change to the design my friends at Sonex could make.

Oh, one more thing: The competition. At Sun 'n' Fun last month, I stumbled upon the SPA display area right next to the Sonex area. Three SPA Panthers (two built by customers and flying extensively) were on display: Several engine options, beautiful engineering, folding wings, LSA, aerobatic--and designed to be fitted with a whole-aircraft parachute system. The two-seat (tandem seating) Cougar reputedly is in the works. Lookin' GOOD .... So perhaps competitive pressure will change some thinking at Sonex on this one.

Finally, I and many others respectfully await publication of the NTSB report of its investigation into the Sonex accident at Oshkosh last June. I know that the field investigator sent from HQ has an engines background; however, a thorough investigation and report should cover many different aspects of the accident, including survival factors. I suspect that intelligent and honest people may find reason to discuss this BRS issue again after the report is finalized and released to the public.

But Bryan Cotton and son Adam are building a legacy Waiex, not a SubSonex, so I should return to what I have claimed since the beginning of of my entry into this thread: There is SO MUCH to say about emergency parachutes for sport pilots--i.e., the kind one straps onto one's mortal bod, not the airplane.

To be continued ....

Keep your rivets in tight formation,
ViennaVA223

[WaiexN143NM]

Hi bryan, jan, and all,
I 've lost some posts and PM too, usually lengthy, so ive learned to keep it short. Bryan, mabe someone w a chute in the sonex. Community would be willing to rent it out for a nominal fee?
My father and i talked to the BRS people a few years back about installing a unit in our waiex . Just to start would be around $20k . I THINK IF A CHUTE IS TO BE INSTALLED it needS to be designed from the get go,to try to retrofit is much harder.

WaiexN143NM
Michael

[rizzz]

John also claimed that the Sonex "stalls at 35, and you come down at 30" under a BRS canopy, implying that a BRS on a Sonex wouldn't confer much survival advantage to a Sonex pilot and passenger.

That's assuming you're still flying your airplane,
The only situation I could imagine where I would jump out (with parachute obviously :) ) or push the BRS deploy button (if I had one :) ), is a situation where the plane is not flyable anymore, like if you have a structural failure or control failure, and in such a scenario I don't think it matters the Sonex only stalls at 35KT.

[Bryan Cotton]

Off topic, but I have learned to copy all before I submit a long post. It is cheap insurance!

Dedham, eh? My mom was from the Cape. I spent summers there. My dad was Florida born but my grandfather was a radioman in the Coast Guard and ended up at Portland Headlight when my parents were high school age. Dad went to school at Orono.

Back to topic: I take to heart all the discussion about familiarization with chutes. I have to confess that for all the acro time in the Pitts I just had a brief with the instructor. My first time wedging myself in the front of the S2A I asked "Tom, if we break the airplane, how am I going to get out of here?" I am not overly big but the cockpit is small. His answer- "you'll be motivated."

We did all our acro at 5000'. Adam and I were discussing the tragic accident in Georgia and how little time you have down low if something goes wrong. I asked him never to accept a ride where low acro was part of the plan and to never fly with anybody who says how good they are.